Study: Texans should pay less attention to some kinds of character issues in draft

Late in the draft process a report surfaced that the hotel room inhabited by Hopkins and Rutgers receiver Mark Harrison during the NFL Scouting Combine was left trashed. Hopkins denied any involvement in the incident and Texans offensive coordinator Rick Dennison said the team researched the incident and concluded it was “not an issue.”

The newest Texan has good hands.

Still maybe the Texans, who have a reputation for staying away from players with character issues, should reconsider that view.

A senior thesis published last year by Kendall Weir studied the draft value NFL teams received for players with criminal records and suspensions, and the results are enlightening. Here are some of the conclusions the economists drew from their analysis of 1,273 players drafted into the National Football League in 2005-09.

EFFECT ON DRAFT POSITION

Having an arrest accompanied by formal criminal charges in college increases draft number by roughly 16 spots, which means that these players are drafted half a round later than those without any records.

A team suspension in college drops a player almost 22 spots in the draft.

EFFECT ON GAMES PLAYED

The number of games played by players who were arrested and charged is not statistically different from those played by players with “clean” histories.

Players suspended for team and university violations are predicted to play in two fewer NFL games per season than otherwise similar players with clean histories.

Those who are arrested but not charged with a crime are actually predicted to play in three more games than those without records of bad behavior.

EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE (controlled for draft order)

Running backs and wide receivers with criminal backgrounds gain an average of nearly 140 more yards per season than those with no character issues.

Running backs and wide receivers who have been suspended gain almost 120 fewer yards per season.

Players with a criminal history outperform their draft day expectations by about one additional touchdown per season.

Players who have been suspended in college for team violations underperform expectations by one touchdown per season.

So what did the authors conclude?

“Taken together, these results suggest that college players with some record of criminal behavior may be undervalued by NFL teams. Players with a formal record of criminal charges are picked later in the draft, but are not predicted to play or start fewer games in the NFL. Meanwhile, although players that have been arrested but not formally charged are picked somewhat earlier in the draft, they still outperform expectations given where they have been selected. However, players who have been suspended in college for violating team or university rules are less likely to succeed in the NFL, after controlling for other characteristics. This suggests that having a history of conflict with coaches and teammates predicts future on the field difficulties, but off field behavior does not negatively impact game performance.”

Basically, then, avoid players who were suspended, but give players arrested a very, very long look.

33 Responses

Wow. Those are some interesting results. If they hold up (paging regression to the mean!), then it will stir up some very lively debates and some interesting chicken and egg arguments.

My suspicion is that if the results are correct, they are rooted in a desire of the arrested to exonerate their names and to prove that the arrest was an error and not a habit. By working harder and doing more, the person arrested hopes to clean the stain of the crime from their escutcheon. Thus, they work more games and do more in each game. Think of this as the “hopeful hypothesis”.

However, a viable alternative hypothesis would be that those who were arrested also take more risks; on the playing field, that would translate to being more willing to do alternative plays that gain them the extra yardage and such. However, the added games argues against this, as such plays are also more likely to entail injuries and so should lead to fewer games played. Think of this as the “dismal hypothesis”.

Overall, the best players are playing and producing: scoring TD’s, gaining more yards, etc…

Since HS and sometimes earlier, they’ve been coddled and not had to take responsibility for anything. Arrested? No big deal. The better you are, the more likely you are to get away with it. And when you make it to the NFL, you have the money to “lawyer up” and sweep it all away. Since you are a better player to begin with, stats will look better.

There are only so many JJ Watts and Andre Johnsons out there. The majority are like Pacman Jones, Ray Lewis, etc…

Interesting conclusion. There are many other aspects to having “bad apples” in the roster I would think. What about have a players actions effect the team overall with bad press? Team cohesion? Stress on coaching staff? Liability? I am not a big pro sports fan, so not sure if these would have a bearing on staying away from players with records or not.

I think the problems you mention are covered by the “team suspension” part, which agrees with your conclusions: someone who has a poor relationship with the coaching staff or team as evidenced by a suspension does worse on average than someone who has a good relationship.

The Texans are what they are: a rather safe franchise. Heck, look at their name alone. You think it took a creative genius to come up with that. The Texans? Really? I wonder if California’s new NFL team will be called the Los Angeles Californians. But anyway, the Texans feel there is no need to stir the boat. I understand and respect their thinking to a degree but in some cases I think low risk moves on potentially high risk talented individuals is necessary to potentially achieving ultimate NFL success. I mean personally I thought the Texans should have brought in one the free agent WRs last year a la a TO or Chad Johnson to help the offense become more explosive, unpredictable and/or effective and efficient on 3rd down. The risk would have been low because the Texans would have had all of the leverage in terms of being able to offer a non-guaranteed contract or a contract at a low figure with incentives. I guess that might take a little creativity, or just cojones. Or I don’t know. The Texans are here to win a Super Bowl correct? I mean why else would they go through all this. Just to make the playoffs and make their fan base think they are trying to get better?

I think that TO and Ocho would tend to follow the research results. These guys have had run-ins with teammates and coaches in the past (TO moreso that C”OC”J). That would follow the pattern of college players getting suspensions for violating team rules.

As far as the Texans pick, I am very excited. I am a Clemson alumnus, and watching “Nuk” Hopkins play ball is a real pleasure. The guy has great instincts, is super-athletic, and has some of the best hands I have ever seen at the college level. If the Texans were looking to boost offensive output, this was a great pick, even if draft analysts may say that Hopkins went a round too soon.

Some other information that would be helpful would be longevity, compared to other players in the same position. For that, a data grab of longer than 2005 to 2009 would be needed.

Two things immediately come to mind. One is whether players who are in trouble are better, on average, than players who were not because the merely average players in trouble were not drafted. The second is whether players who were in trouble in college lasted the same time or shorter in the NFL compared to average players, and if they were traded more frequently. The first case would be one of selection bias. The second would be a test of value to the team. Frequent trades or short professional careers are indications that the players aren’t worth it, despite better performance while playing.

Uh, it’s about wins, not a player’s individual performance. If part of your team ethos is ethical behavior, then any disruption may do more harm than more yards per carry. There are other teamwork-related considerations.

Personally, I approve of the Texan’s take on players. Character is far too important to overlook. I’d prefer an intelligent player with great character over one with slightly more athletic ability but w/o much character.

The very idea of making a contribution almost on subject
concerning football in 2013, a year that will bring severe
personal challenges to more Americans than I care to ponder,
leaves me gasping.

BUT we have a good example in Tim Tebow, of a good player on the college
level with strong personal character that did not make it
in the NFL, mainly because since San Diego introduced Air Coryell
there really has not been a place for a running quarterback
in the NFL ranks.

Pro-football has descended from the days of Tom Landry to the far lower
moral standards of Jerry Jones, and they recruit players that will play
to the level of those low standards.